Abufares Tartoussi

Blogger and Urban Planner

09/11/2010

How could one answer a wrong question with the right answer? Such is my dilemma!
A society which identifies itself as Muslim, Christian, Jewish or by any other color and flavor of religion cannot, by definition, be tolerant. The editor asked for 800 to 1,500 words, however, so I’d better dig deep in my secular bag of tricks and fill the empty spaces in the minds of my aristarchs.

Saudi Arabia, Israel and George W. Bush’s America are three contemporary religious societies and their track records in tolerance are pathetic. Today’s Saudi Arabia is a nightmarish manifestation of a literal Islam. Unknown to most, women are the largest minority in Saudi Arabia with 41% of the population, a bit strange considering that women slightly outnumber men everywhere else. As per Islamic law in effect in Saudi Arabia and in other Muslim countries, men inherit twice as much as women. I have merely stated a fact but have probably stepped on a few toes already. Islam is fair to women!, the heads at the end of the toes would argue. What is fairness without equality?, I retort. Furthermore a man can divorce a woman by uttering the simple phrase:You are divorced! A woman on the other hand has to convince a judge that her husband is a menace to her before she is granted her request for a divorce. Don’t get canonical, devout reader, by giving sexist reasons for this and other manifestations of clearly gender related preferentiality. You know that I only skimmed the surface and that men and women are not equal under Islam (at least not in this materialistic world). Individual freedoms, civil liberties and other religious minorities’ rights in Muslim countries vary depending on the prevailing degree of religiosity and the imposed secular laws. Judaism and Christianity were as inequitable to women as Islam until their judicial influence was neutralized by secular democracy in the West. At certain enlightened times in the past Islam was a progressive religion open to reform and criticism and acquiescing of deviation. It has later morphed into a rigid and morbid textual doctrine, dredging deeper into isolation, away from the modern realities of the world. A contemporary Muslim society cannot be tolerant with its own followers so forget about it being tolerant with religious minorities all together.

Israel! This article’s word count shackles me. By my latest tally Israel has ignored 130 UN resolutions against her since 1948. How can anyone expose en passant her true apartheid nature without using at least a few thousand words to describe her officially adopted policy of racism against Muslims and Christians. Israel does not only discriminate against the original Palestinian majority but systematically bulldozes their homes and murders them. Now Israel is calling for the world to officially recognize her as a Jewish state as if it’s an honor to be branded as such. The most absurd claim advanced by sympathizers of Israel is calling her the only democracy in the region (well, that, and labeling any anti-Israeli individual, organization or society as anti-Semitic). Perhaps Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual leader of Shas, an Israeli political party and a member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s current coalition government summed it best during his sermon of October 16th, 2010 when he said: “Goyim [non-Jews] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel… With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.” Israel is not a democracy but a theocracy run by a disillusioned chosen few and their chauvinistic and nepotist god.

What happened in the United States during the black plague years of George W. Bush is a shameful part of her history. I am not exonerating the world’s undisputed super power from its bloody past, from its crimes against the natives of that great land. So-called Christian ethics were behind the butchering of hundreds of thousands of the original inhabitants of the continent. The United States struggled with the rise and fall of religious fervor and as a result civil liberties deteriorated and flourished with the ascent and ebbing of Christian domination of the decision-making process on all levels. The Bush years produced a Judeo-Christian aberration, a bigoted Zionist-Crusader cabinet of serial killers, criminals and maniacs who wreaked havoc on the entire world. As per the latest released numbers, the death toll in Iraq alone has exceeded 150,000 as a direct result of the American invasion. Discernible Muslim Americans are second class citizens, feared, stigmatized, singled out and discriminated against in the Land of the Free. These victims, inside and abroad, would not have suffered and/or died if a paranoid god didn’t talk to an idiotic supremacist in the white house.

Ironically, the three theocracies mentioned above are buddies. The Bush-stained United States considers Saudi Arabia as one of its preferred moderate allies in the region. A country with one of the worst human rights records, as far as women and religious minorities are concerned, is praised as moderate by the world’s leading democracy. Saudi Arabia is among Israel’s top supporters and the fact that neither admit it openly is irrelevant. Let’s not forget that the Saudis sided with Israel against what they considered a Shiite Hizb Allah in 2006. Israel controls most Christian congressmen in the United States while obstructing Palestinian Christians from celebrating Christmas in their own Church of Nativity. Israel is the first line of defense against any aggression, local or foreign, which might threaten the Saudi Royals.

An empowered religious society, one which is not reined in by explicit secular laws is repressive of all freedoms and liberties of any individual or group with the slightest inclination of dissent or deviation. My answer is an unequivocal No! All contemporary religious societies are not tolerant of religious minorities.

Abu Feras. I love your writing, understand your highlighting of the trilogy of Israel/America/Saudia and I wholeheartedly support your premise. Yet the question is; how tolerant of minorities is Islam today. Let us compare the three you mentioned and see. on the surface all are intolerant. In the US building mosques has a small minority of support, in Israel building churches has an even smaller number of supporters, but in Saudia support for building a synagogue is nonexistent. The three are-as you intimate-effectively majority theocracies, but not all majorities are equal. Our majority is simply and reflexively more intolerant of minorities., period Jews have not killed half as many Muslims as Sunnis have killed Shiaa (and vice versa) in Iraq, but we tend to gloss over that fact. Intolerance of minorities is prevalent in all less educated and underexposed societies. Our Islamic (Wahabi brand) of Islam is the worldwide leader of intentional miss-education and dogmatic forced isolationism. Therefore, it’s no wonder that Islam (as it is practiced today) is backward. Compare us yesterday when we were the leaders in tolerance (twelfth century) and today when we seem to have become the least tolerant society on earth (twenty first century) and you see my point. Societies are boats in the stream of history, the ones without all their oars in the water rarely win races. We can complain all we want about the USA, and Israel, but until we revive Universalist Islam we won’t go far.

Nice to see you here Doc.
I cannot single out Islam as being less tolerant than Christianity and/or Judaism.
We all remember what the Serbs were capable of doing in Kosovo in 1998-1999, the Lebanese Phalangists in Sabra and Shatila in 1982 and the Israelis continue to do every single day to the Palestinians since 1948.
As far as I’m concerned if Islam, Christianity or Judaism are not reined in by secular laws they are equally oppressive of individuals, minorities and even the majority.

Wonderful article Abu Fares. You’ve shed the light on the fact that minorities are labeled and stereotyped in somewhat an outdated manner. Like assuming that all Muslims are a monolithic structure that breathes on the same rhythm and have the same thoughts everyday. What if a Muslim, let alone a member of other religious group, wanted to bail out of the faith and have his own sets of beliefs? how does Islam look at apostasy and how flexible (or rigid) the definition of an apostate is?

Aren’t apostates, who are condemned to death by every reliable scholar, a minority themselves?

As it’s been (rightly) stated in another article here, the most common (and agreed upon-amongst its subscribers) version of political Islam doesn’t accommodate human rights as we understand them in a modern sense. (the writer of the first post dismisses them as “cliches”). The sooner we admit this to ourselves the better.

Excellent article, Abufares. I think your choice of the three most obvious religious societies are great examples to help answer this very general question. After Dr. Ayman’s comment I had to think long and hard about what both of you had to say. My conclusion was that on the surface, it may appear that Saudi Arabia, and other Islamist societies are less tolerant than either Jewish or Christian societies. The Saudis are very overt about their intolerance. However, a lot of intolerance is not so obvious and it is important to consider the blurred line between religious intolerance and racism. Canada boasts religious tolerance and as part of it’s Constitution. The large centres like Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal (for example) have Jewish, Hindu, and Buddist temples, mosques, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches. Many people who live there embrace the multiculturalism. If you were to go to some smaller centres, however, you would encounter an entirely different make up. The only places of worship found would be Christian, and MAYBE but unlikely, a Jewish temple – depending on the size of the town. I guarantee that if you were to approach the citizens of any of these places and ask them how they would feel about a mosque being built in their town they would all be up in arms (not literally). And why is this? Because this would mean that “Arabs” would be moving into their town and they are deathly afraid of the cultural shift. They are terrified of something different. Years ago…I can’t tell you how many…the Lords Prayer was removed from the school system here to create a secular public system. Many people, to this day, don’t understand why it needed to be done and they are bitter – very bitter. This is something so simple, and yet when someone complains about it, it speaks volumes about what they are really trying to say, don’t you think? There are official and unofficial levels of tolerance and I think the deeper you dig beyond the official level, you will find that many people are very faithful to their own “tribe”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism)

From a Philippino standpoint, we can work and worship in Israel, but our children could be deported as non citizens.
In Saudi, we have to destroy our rosaries and Bibles, and face arrest or deportation if we are found going to mass.
In the US, we are assimilated.

So if a Saudi suicide bomber kills Shiite women in Iraq, it’s Bush’s fault, but the Arab world is quiet when Saddam kills thousands of Sunni Kurds and a million Shiite Iranians in his wars?

@Dubai Jazz
You’re absolutely right. The way Islam deals with apostasy is through ZERO Tolerance. Punishment for this “crime” is the death penalty no less.
And DJ it’s funny how we mix cliches with taboos 🙂

@Isobel
Thank you for your candid exposure of this aspect of Canadian society. I’m sure it’s a secret to none but learning about it from the source is always more poignant and straight forward.
I keep repeating myself but there is no way on earth a religious society could be tolerant to “others”. While it’s true for instance that “some” Christian missionaries show more compassion to the ” the pagan natives or followers of other faiths” their true objective is to transform them into Christians.
It’s also self-evident that the majority of racists, bigots and hypocrites all over the world are religious people.

All 3 examples of religious tyranny indicated in my article mistreat minorities. However, while a Christian Filipino’s life in Saudi Arabia is extremely unpleasant it could be tolerable in Israel and acceptable in the US (post-Bush era). Let’s consider now a devout Muslim Palestinian. His life in Saudi Arabia could be described as very good, in post-Bush era US as miserable and in Israel as precarious.

The fact that you, as a Filipino Christian, are better treated in Israel and in post-Bush US than in Saudi Arabia doesn’t make these two any better on their own. In fact the word “better” is totally inappropriate. They are all BAD.

While someone might argue that you can build a mosque in the US but not a church in Saudi Arabia he has to keep in mind that the latter never claimed to be a democracy nor the Land of the Free. Saudi Arabia, to the majority of “normal” Muslims (and by normal I mean those who are not religiously obsessed), is perhaps the last place on earth they want to be at. I’m saying that to make it clear that I’m neither defending Saudi Arabia nor her freakish brand of Islam.

Religion carries its own seeds of human vanity. Religious People are the “Chosen Ones”, the “Sons & Daughters of God” or “Those Bestowed with Allah’s Grace” and they really believe this delusional drivel with misty eyes in moments of serenity and with phosphorous bombs (or suicide vests) when marching toward their Holy Goal, that of eliminating the other.

And Nancy, YES!!! I believe that Bush is responsible (to a large extent) for today’s sectarian violence in Iraq and another YES that Reagan (and his vice-president Bush Senior, remember those good old days) provided Saddam with the necessary weapons to kill the Shiite Iranians. All in the NAME of GOD!!!

I agree with Abufares except that I feel there is a bit of generalization there. You can be a believer without the literal belief in the less “logical” allegories in holy books. And without the exclusivist mentality and definitely without the support for violence against others.

The world will manage to develop non exclusivist models of the same major religions we have today. And anything confusing in any holy book needs to be addressed by religious authorities. Will not be easy, but worth the challenge.

Nancy, Today there are 150,000 Christians living in Baghdad. Before George Bush liberated that city from Saddam, 450,000 Christians used to live there. Iraq’s foreign minister was a Christian … There used to be 28 Chaldean Christian churches when Saddam was there, today there are 14 only.

Saddam was a mass murderer so was George Bush & Cheney … and so is Ben Laden … some human beings are bad news for this planet regardless of their religion or politics. A determined, egoistic, immature, insecure, exclusivist, power hungry selfish man can do a lot of damage.

Isobel, I can tell you from my own experience that when I introduced myself to a “pure” Canadian as a Syrian born Montreal, they usually assume I am a Muslim (I’m Catholic). Their first statements are positive and pleasant. When I later explain I am a Christian, I start hearing a less tolerant version of their opinions of Islam and Muslims and Arabs. Nothing as bad as the Saudis though … if a Mosque is built in their neighborhood they will tolerate it, but not like it. In Saudi Arabia they will burn a church if it is forced on them on the same street.

Exteral Article

WINNIPEG, Manitoba — As waves of immigrants from the developing world remade Canada a decade ago, the famously friendly people of Manitoba could not contain their pique.

What irked them was not the Babel of tongues, the billions spent on health care and social services, or the explosion of ethnic identities. The rub was the newcomers’ preference for “M.T.V.” — Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver — over the humble prairie province north [...] Read More

of North Dakota, which coveted workers and population growth.

Demanding “our fair share,” Manitobans did something hard to imagine in American politics, where concern over illegal immigrants dominates public debate and states seek more power to keep them out. In Canada, which has little illegal immigration, Manitoba won new power to bring foreigners in, handpicking ethnic and occupational groups judged most likely to stay.

This experiment in designer immigration has made Winnipeg a hub of parka-clad diversity — a blue-collar town that gripes about the cold in Punjabi and Tagalog — and has defied the anti-immigrant backlash seen in much of the world.

Rancorous debates over immigration have erupted from Australia to Sweden, but there is no such thing in Canada as an anti-immigrant politician. Few nations take more immigrants per capita, and perhaps none with less fuss.

Is it the selectivity Canada shows? The services it provides? Even the Mad Cowz, a violent youth gang of African refugees, did nothing to curb local appetites for foreign workers.

“When I took this portfolio, I expected some of the backlash that’s occurred in other parts of the world,” said Jennifer Howard, Manitoba’s minister of immigration. “But I have yet to have people come up to me and say, ‘I want fewer immigrants.’ I hear, ‘How can we bring in more?’ ”

This steak-and-potatoes town now offers stocks of palm oil and pounded yams, four Filipino newspapers, a large Hindu Diwali festival, and a mandatory course on Canadian life from the grand to the granular. About 600 newcomers a month learn that the Canadian charter ensures “the right to life, liberty and security” and that employers like cover letters in Times New Roman font. (A gentle note to Filipinos: résumés with photographs, popular in Manila, are frowned on in Manitoba.)

“From the moment we touched down at the airport, it was love all the way,” said Olusegun Daodu, 34, a procurement professional who recently arrived from Nigeria to join relatives and marveled at the medical card that offers free care. “If we have any reason to go to the hospital now, we just walk in.”

Canada has long sought immigrants to populate the world’s second largest land mass, but two developments in the 1960s shaped the modern age. One created a point system that favors the highly skilled. The other abolished provisions that screened out nonwhites. Millions of minorities followed, with Chinese, Indians and Filipinos in the lead.

Relative to its population, Canada takes more than twice as many legal immigrants as the United States. Why no hullabaloo?

With one-ninth of the United States’ population, Canada is keener for growth, and the point system helps persuade the public it is getting the newcomers it needs. The children of immigrants typically do well. The economic downturn has been mild. Plus the absence of large-scale illegal immigration removes a dominant source of the conflict in the United States.

“The big difference between Canada and the U.S is that we don’t border Mexico,” said Naomi Alboim, a former immigration official who teaches at Queens University in Ontario.

French and English from the start, Canada also has a more accommodating political culture — one that accepts more pluribus and demands less unum. That American complaint — “Why do I have to press 1 for English?” — baffles a country with a minister of multiculturalism.

Another force is in play: immigrant voting strength. About 20 percent of Canadians are foreign born (compared with 12.5 percent in the United States), and they are quicker to acquire citizenship and voting rights. “It’s political suicide to be against immigration,” said Leslie Seidle of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Montreal group.

Some stirrings of discontent can be found. The rapid growth of the “M.T.V.” cities has fueled complaints about congestion and housing costs. A foiled 2006 terrorist plot brought modest concern about radical Islam. And critics of the refugee system say it rewards false claims of persecution, leaving the country with an unlocked back door.

“There’s considerably more concern among our people than is reflected in our policies,” said Martin Collacott, who helped create the Center for Immigration Policy Reform, a new group that advocates less immigration.

Mr. Collacott argues high levels of immigration have run up the cost of the safety net, slowed economic growth and strained civic cohesion, but he agrees the issue has little force in politics. “There’s literally no one in Parliament willing to take up the cudgel,” he said.

The Manitoba program, started in 1998 at employers’ behest, has grown rapidly under both liberal and conservative governments. While the federal system favors those with college degrees, Manitoba takes the semi-skilled, like truck drivers, and focuses on people with local relatives in the hopes that they will stay. The newcomers can bring spouses and children and get a path to citizenship.

Most are required to bring savings, typically about $10,000, to finance the transition without government aid. While the province nominates people, the federal government does background checks and has the final say. Unlike many migrant streams, the new Manitobans have backgrounds that are strikingly middle class.

“Back home was good — not bad,” said Nishkam Virdi, 32, who makes $17 an hour at the Palliser furniture plant after moving from India, where his family owned a machine shop.

He said he was drawn less by wages than by the lure of health care and solid utilities. “The living standard is higher — the lighting, the water, the energy,” he said.

The program has attracted about 50,000 people over the last decade, and surveys show a majority stayed. Ms. Howard, the immigration minister, credits job placement and language programs, but many migrants cite the informal welcomes.

“Because we are from the third world, I thought they might think they are superior,” said Anne Simpao, a Filipino nurse in tiny St. Claude, who was approached by a stranger and offered dishes and a television set. “They call it friendly Manitoba, and it’s really true.”

One complaint throughout Canada is the difficulty many immigrants have in transferring professional credentials. Heredina Maranan, 45, a certified public accountant in Manila, has been stuck in a Manitoba factory job for a decade. She did not disguise her disappointment when relatives sought to follow her. “I did not encourage them,” she said. “I think I deserved better.”

They came anyway — two families totaling 14 people, drawn not just by jobs but the promise of good schools.

“Of course I wanted to come here,” said her nephew, Lordie Osena. “In the Philippines there are 60 children in one room.”

Every province except Quebec now runs a provincial program, each with different criteria, diluting the force of the federal point system. The Manitoba program has grown so rapidly, federal officials have imposed a numerical cap.

Arthur Mauro, a Winnipeg business leader, hails the Manitoba program but sees limited lessons for a country as demographically different as the United States. “There are very few states in the U.S. that say, ‘We need people,’ ” he said.

But Arthur DeFehr, chief executive officer of Palliser furniture, does see a lesson: choose migrants who fill local needs and give them a legal path.

With 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, he sees another opportunity for Manitoba. “I’m sure many of those people would make perfectly wonderful citizens of Canada,” he said. “I think we should go and get them.”

@Alex
I am a notorious generalist. It’s an integral part of my character and it’s clearly reflected in my writing.
When I sit with someone tête-à-tête and am obliged to go into details I can accommodate the exceptions by accepting them as another abstraction.
It is a ridiculous proposition that all believers are prone to violence, racism and bigotry. However, that they are “more” prone is certainly worth considering. I found myself inadvertently raising my voice the other day during (yet another useless) discussion about religion. I slammed my brakes when I realized that being an ardent secular humanist is as intellectually fallacious as being an Islamist.

On another note Canada remains a safe harbor for anyone who wants a fair chance in starting a life in honor and dignity. I gather that the current right-wing government is as idiotic as the Bush Administration but I’m sure that Canadians are “at least” as decent as the many wonderful Americans I already know. You rightly pointed out the asymmetry between building mosques in Canada and churches in Saudi Arabia. People everywhere are afraid of the unknown and this is where the advantage of secular laws and constitutions over those based on tyrannical theocracies becomes very apparent. A law abiding Canadian who “hates” Islam has to accept the building of a mosque in his small town after due process while a Saudi citizen is likely to burn a church unless forced on him by the boots of despotism.

Thank you Alex for adding a new dimension to my article through your comments.

Well, I guess if we are measuring intolerance by the extent of violence, then, yes Alex and Abufares, the Saudi’s win for sure. I was looking at the initial level of acceptance that is sometimes difficult to measure because there is no associated violence and/or people hide behind a polite front as was evident in Alex’s case.